Find Journal Metrics Scores for Nature, Science, Cell, PNAS, Nature Communications instantly
Choose a subject category from the journal database, then sort the field page by Journal Metrics Score or quartile.
Clinical medicine, public health, epidemiology, specialties, and translational medical research.
Cardiology, cardiovascular medicine, heart disease, vascular biology, and clinical cardiovascular research.
Surgical specialties, operative techniques, outcomes, perioperative care, and clinical surgery research.
Cancer research, oncology practice, tumor biology, therapeutics, screening, and clinical cancer studies.
Neuroscience, neurology, cognitive neuroscience, cellular neuroscience, and brain research journals.
Clinical, cognitive, social, developmental, applied, and experimental psychology journals.
Molecular biology, genetics, biochemistry, plant science, ecology, and broad life-science journals.
Electrical, mechanical, civil, aerospace, biomedical, manufacturing, and systems engineering journals.
Artificial intelligence, software, networks, information systems, theory, and computing journals.
Organic, inorganic, analytical, physical, materials, and chemical engineering journals.
Physics, astronomy, optics, condensed matter, high-energy physics, and applied physics journals.
Environmental science, ecology, climate, earth science, geoscience, and sustainability journals.
Sociology, political science, communication, education, anthropology, law, and social policy journals.
Helpful Starting Points
Start with a field list, a quartile view, a country page, or a short guide depending on what you need to verify.
Compare journals inside a subject area before opening individual records.
Use quartile pages to narrow a shortlist when ranking matters more than a single journal lookup.
Check regional journal lists and publisher-location context from the same database.
Understand the newest Journal Metrics Score, subfield quartiles, ISSNs, CAS block, and source links together.
Trust & Quality
Journal Metrics is built to help researchers verify journal metrics quickly and understand the publishing decisions around them. We document how data is maintained, how guides are reviewed, and how readers can request corrections.
See where journal records come from, how the Journal Metrics Score and CAS data are maintained, and what limitations users should keep in mind.
Review how guides are planned, checked, updated, and corrected before and after publication.
Learn how to confirm whether a journal is actually indexed in the major scholarly databases it claims.
Research Guides
These guides answer common journal selection, publishing, and metrics questions and create stronger internal paths for both users and crawlers.
A practical guide to the Retraction Watch database: how to search it, download the full CSV dataset from Crossref GitLab, use the Crossref REST API, and set up Zotero alerts so retracted papers do not reach your manuscript.
A practical guide to OpenAI’s Rosalind Academic Plan: U.S. lab eligibility, application routes, 30 sponsored seats, API exclusions, data terms, and a four-week evaluation plan.
A meta-analysis synthesizes data from primary studies, making it a secondary source. But when you cite a meta-analysis for its pooled findings, it functions as your primary evidence. Here is how to classify, cite, and report meta-analyses correctly.
On October 9, 2026, IOP Publishing retracted nearly 100 conference papers for tortured phrases, bringing its total past 1,000 retractions for this form of fraud. The same paraphrasing tools that produced "cerebral torment" and "bosom disease" appear in biomedical papers too. Here is what the detection wave means for medical authors.
A 2026 commentary in the Journal of General Internal Medicine argues that peer review remains largely invisible in academic promotion. Here is what medical researchers who review can do now to document the work, earn CME credit, and make the contribution visible when it matters.
A global AI disclosure standard is under active consultation through October 2026. Born from the 9th World Conference on Research Integrity in Vancouver, the Vancouver Standard proposes a unified framework for when, where, and how researchers must report AI use. Here is what medical authors need to understand before it arrives.